Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Actually, if I can amend this RFC, I just noticed while double > checking for any guideline that could be mis-used for either purpose > that there's an additional guideline which also provides justification > for "unboxing", and also ought to be removed: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease under section 11: > > "A BoxSet consisting exactly of a set of discs previously released in > a standalone form should not be added (see BoxSetNameStyle), but the > standalone discs instead. That obviously means that such a BoxSet > discs may be merged into the standalone versions." > > I'm not quite sure how obvious this is, considering it's counter to > current practice, and I think more than a few editors > would be quite upset if all the work they'd put into adding box sets > were to be undone by someone merging / retitling the box sets into > non-box set releases. >
And, prey tell, if noone is unboxing their box sets when they submit the data to MB in order to make said data useful to the most, how did we end up with two wiki pages saying that? > In my opinion, there is *no* justification for telling an editor who > has a box set and is entering a box set that he ought to be instead > entering his box set as the non-box set versions of his release. So why dont't you give Andrew a polite pointer like I did in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8523261 in stead of creating all this fuss? I do inform editors of the possibility to add something unboxed in stead of boxed, and yes, I inform them of the benefits that follow this practice. (I do not say that they shouldn't add boxed sets.) I don't see that as wrong. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
